Where is the kWh price heading in 2022?

[Radian]

3 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Most agreed that they were acceptable 'in the right place', which was no where close to where they lived.

 

I wonder what they would say now. 

[SimonD]

12 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

A few years ago, over at the other place, there was a hot debate about on shore wind turbines.

Most agreed that they were acceptable 'in the right place', which was no where close to where they lived.

The right place for on shore wind it on top hills, and then as large as possible.  When I said that, it did not go down to well.

 

Yes, this is the dilema. Wind generation needs to be where the wind is and this often clashes with peoples' view. Vattenfall has come under some criticism in Sweden for this. Large windfarms are being developed in non-ideal places because the ideal places are more heavily populated and develoment is resisted, not that they're anywhere near as heavily populated as here though.

 

I've really tried, but I personally find it difficult to accept the position of those who oppose the development of onshore renewable energy because it might be an eye sore, yet want the energy on tap and to be able to consume it cheaply.

[SimonD]

25 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Somehow I think that J R-M will do little damage, he is an irrelevance and most know it.  Having said that like Boris in he past, he is entertaining.

 

I don't feel so sure about that. I think behind the scenes he's able to muster undue organisational influence because what he's saying plays into the hands of those who have much to gain and lose in the coming energy shift and they currently wield power. Just consider the self-inflicted damage he and the ERG helped to inflict socially, economically and politically and for what real ends?

[SteamyTea]

25 minutes ago, Radian said:

 

I wonder what they would say now. 

Only have to look on here for the range of answers.

[SteamyTea]

14 minutes ago, SimonD said:

 

I've really tried, but I personally find it difficult to accept the position of those who oppose the development of onshore renewable energy because it might be an eye sore, yet want the energy on tap and to be able to consume it cheaply

No any of them live near an old nuclear power station, but don't work there.

I was working up near Nottingham when they blew up the old power station cooling towers. No one missed them, but people did not mind then. They were just something that was there.

10 minutes ago, SimonD said:

Just consider the self-inflicted damage he and the ERG helped to inflict socially, economically and politically and for what real ends?

But he only got about a third of voters on side and did not sway many of his party to support BREXIT.

I think he is like Wedgy Benn. Stands up, says his well written and delivered piece, everyone nods, then forgets about it.

[SimonD]

2 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

No one missed them, but people did not mind then. They were just something that was there.

I think that was the same for Didcot, coming over the hill on the A34, or walking up on the ridgeway, the view was just something that was there.

[SteamyTea]

15 minutes ago, SimonD said:

Didcot

And when I do my weekly drive by I don't notice it has gone.

New houses there now I think.

Did they ever find the body of the guy who got buried there?

[Pocster]

I think there are simpler solutions.

 

Wales.

 

 

Yes wales. Remember the film "Escape from New York" ?. We section off Wales with a big wall ( Welsh hate the English anyway ) so I can't see any objections to that. We then stick loads of on shore wind turbines all over Wales. In England we build loads of nuclear power plants ( yes, yes ; I know the radioactive by product is a problem ). The radioactive waste we dump in wales.

If this solution causes any Welsh people discomfort ( and I fully appreciate it might ) ; we do it along the Scottish boarder instead.

 

SIMPLES!

[SteamyTea]

3 minutes ago, pocster said:

section off Wales with a big wall

I rubbed a bottle I found and a Genie came out and offered me 3 wishes.

1st wish: a penny more than I can spend; granted.

2nd wish: to build a 5 mile high wall around Wales; granted.

3rd wish: asked the genie if the wall was watertight, told yes.

Fill it with water then.

[Pocster]

2 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

I rubbed a bottle I found and a Genie came out and offered me 3 wishes.

1st wish: a penny more than I can spend; granted.

2nd wish: to build a 5 mile high wall around Wales; granted.

3rd wish: asked the genie if the wall was watertight, told yes.

Fill it with water then.

Yes ! We can then generate tidal energy from the submerged Welsh Atlantis ! . Tempted to email Boris with my suggestion ( solution ! ) because it’s a winner !

[Radian]

1 hour ago, SimonD said:

Yes, this is the dilema. Wind generation needs to be where the wind is and this often clashes with peoples' view. Vattenfall has come under some criticism in Sweden for this. Large windfarms are being developed in non-ideal places because the ideal places are more heavily populated and develoment is resisted, not that they're anywhere near as heavily populated as here though.

 

I'll happily have it in my 'back garden' (or at least a hill I can see from my back garden)

 

 

Not many people living in Purbeck. Tyneham Village village is deserted. The ridgeway hill continues on to the West between Weymouth and Dorchester. Miles of lovely deserted hilltop.

[SteamyTea]

6 minutes ago, Radian said:

Not many people living in Purbeck

True. One of my old university flat mates threw himself of the cliffs, and another one drank himself to death, last year.

Glad I moved, would have been my turn next I think.

[Big Jimbo]

I have no idea how much of our housing stock is leaky, badly insulated etc but, i expect it is very high. I hate to say but i think that the planners, and planning system does not help. If, and i am not saying that i am right, the best house is a simple box, flat roof, no fancy sticky out bits, then that is what we should be building. One of the problems is that people (purchasers) planners etc are most comfortable with things that fit in with the other houses around them. The second is that mortgage lenders still take a sharp intake of breath of buildings that are non standard construction. I will probably get shouted at, but i really believe that we should only build houses that have a life expectancy of 60 years. Technology, materials etc will move on so much in that time that any housing stock will only be fit for pulling down, and any retrospctive bringing up to spec will be too costly.

[markc]

Many hill tops are not suited to wind turbines, or should I say not efficient anyway.  If the wind direction is up the slope you can have eddy’s and vortices.

wind turbines need steady, linear air flow acting evenly on the blades. Different wind speeds between bottom blade and top causes cyclic loads and they are noisy and cause premature blade failure.

swirling wind, gusts, too low, too high all cause turbines to feather and shut down because they cannot react to the direction or speed effectively.

[SteamyTea]

10 minutes ago, Big Jimbo said:

Technology, materials etc will move on so much in that time that any housing stock will only be fit for pulling down, and any retrospctive bringing up to spec will be too costly.

We should make houses that are easy to pull down and recycle then.

Technology may move on, a little bit (think how little it has changed in the last 40 years), but the Laws of Thermodynamics and Conservation of Energy will still be the same.

 

We have a couple or 3 new members on here, how long before we have to tell them to build an airtight and, better than building regs, insulated home.

And then explain that if a ground floor is heated, much more insulation is needed.

Then how a heat pump works, and how PV roofs can be cheaper to install than fancy tiled ones.

And my bug bear, fitting 40, 5 W, LED bulbs in a kitchen is not low energy. It is still like 2 old 100 W bulbs.

[Onoff]

3 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

We should make houses that are easy to pull down and recycle then.

Technology may move on, a little bit (think how little it has changed in the last 40 years), but the Laws of Thermodynamics and Conservation of Energy will still be the same.

 

We have a couple or 3 new members on here, how long before we have to tell them to build an airtight and, better than building regs, insulated home.

And then explain that if a ground floor is heated, much more insulation is needed.

Then how a heat pump works, and how PV roofs can be cheaper to install than fancy tiled ones.

And my bug bear, fitting 40, 5 W, LED bulbs in a kitchen is not low energy. It is still like 2 old 100 W bulbs.

 

All this stuff is though the preserve of the few who know about it or are lucky enough to have implemented it.

 

The masses haven't got a clue about air tightness, most builders either don't care or won't go to the same level of detail that people on here do.

 

It is simply not in the government or big business interest to save energy.

[SteamyTea]

4 minutes ago, markc said:

Many hill tops are not suited to wind turbines, or should I say not efficient anyway

Depends how tall the tower is.

About time we stopped fitting half a dozen 2 MW turbines and just fit an 8 MW one.

We got into this mess though our planning system. It was not unusual for developers to apply for 6 turbines, get refused, then apply to put 2, larger ones in.

And this nonsense about giving 'locals' cheap energy, that is just rewarding wankers.

Should do it the other way around, cut them off if they kick up a fuss.

 

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, Onoff said:

 

It is simply not in the government or big business interest to save energy

It is now, and it brought down the Heath government.

[markc]

4 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Depends how tall the tower is.

About time we stopped fitting half a dozen 2 MW turbines and just fit an 8 MW one.

We got into this mess though our planning system. It was not unusual for developers to apply for 6 turbines, get refused, then apply to put 2, larger ones in.

And this nonsense about giving 'locals' cheap energy, that is just rewarding wankers.

Should do it the other way around, cut them off if they kick up a fuss.

 

Absolutely right, economy of scale! The bigger turbines are so much more efficient from production, infrastructure, output and maintenance wise.

we supply a lot of access equipment for blade maintenance and it’s amazing how many are not producing due to poor placement and specification.

 

[Onoff]

20 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

It is now, and it brought down the Heath government.

 

It must go in cyles then 'cos "they" never learn!

[ToughButterCup]

40 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

...

We have a couple or 3 new members on here, how long before we have to tell them to build an airtight and, better than building regs, insulated home.

And then explain that if a ground floor is heated, much more insulation is needed.

Then how a heat pump works, and how PV roofs can be cheaper to install than fancy tiled ones.

...

 

And every last bit of information they need is already here, just waiting to be read. 😕

[SteamyTea]

26 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

And every last bit of information they need is already here, just waiting to be read.

Then we need to get some general information pages that are easy to reference.

And sort out the forums hopeless search function.

Actually better off getting rid of it and just using Google site:

[ToughButterCup]

Hmmm, the first idea is excellent, but really hard work to sort out. 

 

In relation to your second idea maybe a guide on how to search for content on BH ?  Internal to the site and on google or other search engines?

 

Part of the 'trouble' (wrong word probably) is our preparedness to answer the same question time and again. It is curmudgeonly to say to new members - go and look for yourself .... 

Its easier for the new member to ask (quickly), and for us to answer (just as fast). Tinternet is about speed - information grabbing - and just enough and no more than needed.

[SteamyTea]

9 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

Hmmm, the first idea is excellent, but really hard work to sort out. 

How so.  A few pages on a admin blog, with a permanent link as below.

 

[Pocster]

17 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

Hmmm, the first idea is excellent, but really hard work to sort out. 

 

In relation to your second idea maybe a guide on how to search for content on BH ?  Internal to the site and on google or other search engines?

 

Part of the 'trouble' (wrong word probably) is our preparedness to answer the same question time and again. It is curmudgeonly to say to new members - go and look for yourself .... 

Its easier for the new member to ask (quickly), and for us to answer (just as fast). Tinternet is about speed - information grabbing - and just enough and no more than needed.

No , no , no . I like the same questions over and over again because even I can get to answer some . I then appear knowledgeable and experienced. That then inflates my low self esteem and perceived worth . To take this away and have pages of “ answers to common questions “ would leave me wanting 😞🥲